Trump is not the best president ever. He's also not the worst.

Image Source Flickr CC license 

Something that bothers me with Trump supporters is the occasional claim that Trump is the best president we've ever had.

Many will argue over what achievements he's had and that is fine. It's common and understandable that supporters will give him more credit than those who oppose him.

Even if you think he's a great president, arguing that he's the best president ever is simply willful ignorance.

Lincoln, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, FDR and TR are often thought to be the best presidents in the history of our nation. In my opinion putting Trump above them isn't just laughable, it's willful ignorance.

What has Trump's biggest challenge been? A few matters in foreign affairs? Several large hurricanes (with a mixed record on recovery)? Nearly everything he's faced has been worse in the last 50 years at times, with equal or better records by the president's facing those challenges. The biggest point people push is that the economy is really good. But going from a good economy to a great, doesn't exactly make him the best president ever by far. 

Compare that with the five presidents mentioned, each of whom had lasting significant positive impacts on the history of the country.FDR for instance faced a much more difficult economy, a world war, and passed major legislation that still has impacts to this day. Lincoln faced a country at war, worked to unite the country with the transcontinental railroad and made sure economically those states who remained had a firepower economy. Washington built the government from the ground up, paid off the national debt, established initial ties with foreign countries, and helped keep the country united through the intial years of our country. 

Likewise, the belief that Trump (or Obama) is the worst president in history is also laughable. Buchanan is easily the worst, with his failure to compromise and push forward needed policies to shape the country in a way that it could move forward directly leading to the Civil War. Others that are worth noting, Harding who did very little and whose administration was riddled with fraud and scandals, Andrew Johnson who barely survived impeachment and who opposed reconstruction efforts, and of course Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace. Each of these men had major scandals, and divided the country in some of the worst ways. Now, Trump does have time that he could equal any of these men on either side possibly, but it isn't likely that he will. 

FEC Vastly Underfunded, Allowing Corporate Interests to Rule

It is no surprise to anyone that money is flooding into federal elections in the post-Citizens United era.  The surprise is how little of it is being regulated. The agency tasked with monitoring and regulating all elections is severely limited due to staff cuts and partisan bickering.

The commission over the past year has reached an all-time low in its ability to reach consensus, stalling action on dozens of rulemaking decisions, as well as audit and enforcement matters, some of which are years old.

Additionally, partisan bickering among the appointed commissioners has led to a drop in agency fines for political committees that break election rules. In 2006 the FEC assessed a total of more than $6.7 million in fines. By 2012, however due to the inefficiency of the agency, it collected less than $1 million in fines.

Despite dramatic increases in election spending sped up by key Supreme Court decisions, the agency’s funding has remained flat for five years and staffing levels have fallen to a 15-year low overall.

Analysts who are charged with scouring disclosure reports to ensure candidates and political action committees are complying with laws have a nearly quarter-million-page backlog. One of the aims of the agency was to have all non-presidential committee audits finished 10 months after the election. At 10 months only 27% had been completed.

The agency is also seriously out of date when it comes to online donations, where few regulations have been put into place. The FEC does not require donations under $200 to be reported.

This means that $1.8 million of the donations received by Obama in September of 2012 required no associated names or addresses because they were under the $200 limit. This lack of regulation could easily allow corporations and foreign donors to make donations illegally, threatening the credibility of our election system.

In election after election, record amounts of money continue to be spent on campaigns. Last year topped 6 billion dollars, more than half of which was spent on the presidential campaign.

With more money flowing into politics, issues such as partisan divides and low staffing affecting the FEC one thing is for sure: this is a recipe for disaster.

So why does this matter so much? In 2010 only 9 House challengers who spent under $1 million won their seats. Similarly, in most presidential elections the winner is the one who raises the most.

This type of system, an increasingly plutocratic one, leads to corruption, where our leaders do the bidding of those who fund their campaigns. While our nation was designed to be secured with a system of checks and balances, we are now being ruled by whoever writes the biggest check and has the biggest balance, and that is not what our founding fathers wanted. 

As we continue to allow special interests to rule through powerful lobbying our nation's foundation crumbles beneath our feet. We need to wake up and get involved in our government especially in our communities.

Mark Zuckerberg and Immigration Reform: Why we need it now.

If you haven't read my original post on immigration reform I encourage you to read it here. In the last few weeks Mark Zuckerberg's group FWD.org released several videos encouraging Americans to support immigration reform in the U.S. The overall point of the following video is to take home the human aspect of this important issue. They are trying to impress upon us that many immigrants believe in American values and want their piece of the American dream. They don't want to be a burden on our system, they want to be here legally.





While it is true that these people are here illegally, it is because of our current outdated laws. If not for that they could be fully functioning members of our society. For most Americans our ancestors came here with the same dreams as many of those who have come here illegally in the last 30 years; their dreams included freedom from religious persecution, tyrannical governments, security for themselves and their children, to gain an education, and to have new opportunities to improve their financial situation.

Many people support changing the current laws, which have become limiting and ineffective in encouraging legal immigration to the U.S. and often punish those who have known no other country but the U.S. as home. The backlog for working visas, even for high skill workers, has become limiting to our nations growth especially in high tech fields. Even spouses of citizens often have a difficult time receiving visas due to the difficulty navigating our system.

This is a serious issue and it deserves a serious debate by our leaders about the best path forward. We need to increase our security checks and protect both our border and our citizens from those who would do harm to us; but we also need to make a clear path for those who share our values, by preparing the way for those who want to come and by making a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

There is an opposition to reform, and I do understand some of the arguments used by opponents to the bipartisan immigration reform bill. As you may be aware there is a bill which has passed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year that is awaiting consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill attempts to address many of the immigration reform issues including securing the border, providing a pathway to citizenship, and providing for more clear regulations on providing visas.

The opposition often points at one major concern: illegal immigrants will be rewarded for coming to the U.S. illegally by granting citizenship. These are the individuals that call any path to citizenship no matter how rigorous "amnesty" and say that it is unacceptable. They state that by offering a path to citizenship we will have failed to uphold the rule of law. They feel there is nothing wrong with current laws but that current laws just need to be enforced.

The answer to this concern though can be answered in several ways, two of which I will explain here. The first is answered by posing these questions: what would you have us do with the (estimated) 14 million immigrants here, many of whom have been here for over 15 years and some who have never known another country? Would you punish them because they were babies when their parents brought them here by sending them to a country where they don't speak the language and don't know anyone? The answer to these questions is no because the cost of deporting 14 million people would be ridiculously high. Instead, the bill requires the border to be secured by adding border patrol agents and electronic monitoring, including drones. Additionally it would implement the e-verify system to ensure workers are here legally. Only after these conditions are put in place would any illegals be allowed to be considered for a visa. It seems to be in our better interest both as members of the human family and as citizens of the United States that we reach out to those who are here illegally and offer them a hand up, not a shove out the door.

The second part of the answer is that there is a punishment put into place. Individuals here illegally would have to pay both a fine and back taxes which they owe, pass a background check, and wait for all those who have already applied to be considered for visas before they would get one. All things considered it is likely that the first individuals in this general category would have to wait 15 or more years to even be considered for citizenship.

Even with all of this, without significant Republican support in the house, it seems immigration reform might fail in the House if public support wavers at all on this issue. This is the best chance we have had in over 5 years to accomplish something which can have lasting positive impact on millions of individuals. I have applauded every member of the Senate who has voted for the bill.

“Today’s final immigration vote represents a product of many long hours of debate, discussion, and deliberation. It takes into consideration the necessity of securing America’s borders, while encouraging the lawful immigration of those who want to come to our shores to contribute to America’s greatness,” said Senator Dean Heller.

“While not perfect, this immigration reform bill is a step in the right direction towards fixing an immigration system that is clearly broken. No question, this has been a contentious debate. While the easy thing to do politically is nothing, the harder choice is to govern. I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans were able to find ways to work together and pass legislation that this great nation deserves.”

To those who are on the fence about supporting the bipartisan gang of eight bill I say this: supporting it does not mean that you agree with everything in it, but it does recognize that this bill is the first significant piece of legislation with bipartisan support that has emerged from either house in the past 5 years, and with additional support it can also pass the House of Representatives.

I encourage you to do research on this bill, think through the issue, and contact your U.S. Representative to voice your support on this issue. It is vitally important that we as citizens become civically engaged in our democratic process in order to maintain our voice. I am glad that Mark Zuckerberg has thrown his support behind the movement and is raising awareness about the subject.

What Obama really meant in his Treyvon Martin speech.

Obama made an appearance Friday the 19th of July to discuss the verdict of a case that has received a lot of attention. I am not going to be talking about the case. I will talk about certain points in his speech and what I believe to be his meaning behind them.

"You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago." Obama said this closer to the beginning of his speech and they are the two lines that get quoted on the news than any other part of his speech. It is not hard to understand what he is talking about. There is still a stigma in America that minorities are looked down upon in many ways. History has shown us that this has always been the case. Starting with slavery and indentured servitude to the Jim Crowe laws to interracial marriage laws. And to this day there is still a remnant of this treatment. This remnant, however, has shifted for the most part away from laws that put African-Americans down. It has switched to a social construct. A construct that has changed most people's feelings from disgust and hatred to fear and uneasiness. Don't get me wrong there are still plenty of people out there who hate African-Americans, but I hope they are a dying breed. Obama knows and has been part of a time where it was still ok to hate and fear African-Americans. He has been in Trayvon Martin's shoes. And this is something a vast majority of the white population can't say.

The other major point brought up by Obama is discussing race anywhere but the House and the Senate. This according to a lot of news stations is something that is almost a hushed subject like having an abortion in the early nineties; it was just something you would not talk about. And this is something I feel is very wrong with America. Sadly there are a lot of people that can not have an educated discussion about many topics but that does not mean they should not be avoided or swept under the rug. A man of Obama's power saying to America "Discuss race" is amazing to me. Everyone should feel free to discuss hot topics. And who knows some may be better for it.

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." Martin Luther King Jr.

Syria

By Keil Myers
The United States has exhibited some hesitancy to support the opposition to the Assad regime in the Syria civil war. One reason for this lukewarm support is most likely due to the composition of the major Syrian rebel groups where they almost all have ties to Muslim extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. In Addition to this opposition groups have been shown to commit various human rights abuses. Such items understandably make the United States less willing to fully commit to assisting these groups for fear of merely replacing one problem with another potentially larger one. Nevertheless, such reluctance is leading to exactly what the United States fears and further intervention is required in order to limit the damage that this war will cause.

There are several major opposition groups with some of the larger ones including the Free Syria Army which is a group primarily made up of military deserters along with multiple smaller militias note under the direct control of the main FSA. These groups have been indicted of human rights violations with the most recent case being in the last month where a video was taken of a FSA commander eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier. Along with this the FSA has worked with groups such as Al Nusra, a group that has sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda such ties have made the United States somewhat reluctant to become heavily involved with opposition groups like the FSA. However, with the more than the reluctant support that the United States has displayed the FSA could potentially strengthen its control of the groups and individuals currently outside of its control.

The next largest opposition group to the Assad regime is the Syrian Nation Council. This group was, until recently, widely considered the voice of the Syrian people. The SNC is a loose coalition of representatives from various groups with the organization itself based in Turkey. However, the United States was hesitant to trust the SNC due to its heavy ties with the Muslim Brotherhood with many in Syria itself seeing the SNC as
a front for the organization and one member of the council claimed that the majority of the members of the council were Muslim extremists. Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups have made the United States and other western nations less willing to assist the SNC and why they chose to merge with the Syrian National Coalition. 

Formed in 2012 in order to provide a more inclusive government than the Syrian National Coalition is the largest opposition group has been generally recognized as the legitimate government of the Syrian people. The National Coalition consists of a larger number of groups including members of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syria Army, various local committees, as well as other religious and secular groups.  While not all of these groups have ties to extremist Islam many of them do. Nevertheless, the majority of the coalition is made up of individuals and groups that would be willing to moderate their position as the situation required and they deserve more than the weak support that the United States has provided so far.



So while the United States reluctance to support the rebel groups is understandable as things stand not intervening in Syria is more likely to cause more damage than intervening. In the last few weeks reports from Washington and the United Nations Security Council has stated that they are almost certain that members of the Assad regime have employed chemical weapons on the rebels. Last year President Obama proclaimed that the use of chemical weapons was the red line, which if crossed would prompt a response from the United States. Use of these weapons is unethical and their use should prompt the United States to abandon its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to limit the collateral damage to civilians. In addition to this such actions would serve to let the world know that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated.

In addition to this, the United States reluctance to help the rebels is helping to radicalize the revolution in Syria. Similar to Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries the rebels in Syria and willing to adopt the philosophies and attitudes of those who are willing to help them in their revolution and as a result the number of Islamic radicals in the opposition is growing. For instance, The Economist recently reported that due to the western world's hesitancy to support the opposition, members of the opposition haveturned to Islamist groups for support. This support has led to those who are more extreme to become more powerful and to have greater influence in the revolution. This radicalization has made the made increased involvement distasteful to western governments leading to moderate politics to enter a death spiral in the opposition. The United States should shed its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to ingratiate itself to the rebels and increase the influence of voices favorable to the United States in the coming government.

The United States reluctance to increase its involvement with the Syrian is understandable considering the most of the opposition may be worse than the Assad regime. Their hesitance has driven the opposition towards greater radicalization and  weakened the moderates in the opposition. Nevertheless in the face of the increasing  radicalization and the use of chemical weapons the United States should forgo their fears and become further involved in supporting the Syrian opposition in order to limit the damage of this civil war to the Syrian people as well as the spread of Islamic radicalism in the Middle East.

Here’s a brief summary of the different rebel factions in case anyone is interested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218

NSA PRISM How Far is Too Far?

By Tim Newton
The Guardian reports that the NSA has gone further in it's collection of private data in wide spread gathering, using a program called "PRISM" to collect private data from several top internet companies including Facebook, Yahoo, and Google.  To quote from their article:

 "The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers."
All of the companies involved claim that they have not willingly participated in this program, and have denied all knowledge of said program. This program again falls under the reauthorized Patriot Act provisions, which allow for this and similar types of monitoring as we saw with the collection of data from Verizon subscribers. 

President Obama today responded to these actions by saying “They make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity,” Obama said. He added that the programs are “under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and they do not involve listening to people’s phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents.” He also said “You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”

The question each of us must be asking is was I part of this, and if so why was I included? A CNN poll taken shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that 49% of Americans are not willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism, with 40% saying they would. Since the beginning of the institutions of governments by mankind we have had a constant struggle with balancing the rights of the individual and the protection of many. With the increasingly difficult blurry line in the global war on terror, including domestic terrorism it becomes difficult to see where our government won't go to "protect" us. I am not saying that we will soon see anything like "1984," or "V for Vendetta." I am however realistic in my view of government. It also begs the question is it necessary? Are acts of terrorism preventable by such means, and if so where is the line and who is watching the line of how far is too far? 

In 2007 a popular senator heavily criticized the same tactics employed today. "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient." Yes, that would be our current President who said that. Watch the full speech below.
 


Our country was founded, when men seeing that their rights were being abridged in the name of protection, became fed up with those actions and pulled away from their national government. In the Declaration of Independence it says:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Now mind you Jefferson did not specify all unalienable rights that we have inherently been endowed with, but he makes it clear that if a Government becomes destructive of the rights of man we must alter it in one form or another. I think the first step is to increase congressional oversight and accountability. Congress was trusted by the founders with more powers precisely because it takes longer for it to act, and by the slow movement through compromise the rights of individuals have a greater tendency to remain protected. Even our current president, when a member of congress could easily see that this was an overreach of power. Something within his greed and ambition seems to have blinded him from the fact that these actions are clearly overstepping his constitutional bounds, as he himself said then:

"To target and gather such data and expect the American people to just trust that the data will be kept and protected from abuses would mean we would basically have to forget about all of human history, which has shown that eventually when people are given power they will seek to abuse it. When first enacted, there was heavy concern by individuals in the nation that social security numbers would become a way of identifying and singling out individuals, so there was a guarantee that social security numbers would never be used as an identification method. Just one example how about the IRS targeting that we continue to learn more about? At hearing after hearing Lois Lerner and Steve Miller denied that such targeting was occurring, even as they new it was occurring. 

Again I'm not saying that government serves no purpose, but that government should be constrained and not left to roam free. We have an established constitution, which should be followed."



It seems after each of these questions people have asked so what should be done? My answer to that so what is this, let's focus on reigning in presidential power again, increase our checks and balances, and make sure that the government is held accountable by the people for actions that are violating our rights. Several of our founders thought that a bill of rights would be unnecessary because they never thought that such basic freedoms would be infringed upon because they had not granted power to the government to infringe upon them. It seems more important than ever for us to reestablish these rights as unacceptable to be infringed upon, and make sure that the government is aware of it. We need to speak out and make our voice heard. America is not the land of big brother government, but the land of the free and home of the brave, we will not be bullied by big government bureaucrats, and we will not be silenced. 

NSA and FBI Compel Verizon to Hand Over Phone Records How Much is Too Much?

By Tim Newton
Last night the Guardian reported that the FBI and NSA obtained a search warrant to obtain all telephone records of individuals in its systems on an ongoing daily basis. As you may know Verizon is a significant provider within the U.S. of phone service. This order was provided by the  Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) and was authorized on April 25th for a three month period until the end of July

Over the last few weeks I have not minced my words about government overreach. After trying to plow over the first and second amendments to the constitution, the Obama administration has set it's eyes on a new one: the fourth. It reads;  "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 

Now we do know that the Patriot act allows for both wiretapping and seizing of said records. This law was of course in reaction to the 9/11 terror attack. I understand why it was passed, but it has long been a great concern for many Americans, because we know that great power is often abused.

 The response from the White House was that laws governing such orders "are something that have been in place for a number of years now" and that they are vital to national security. I don't understand though, how my phone records are so vital to national security. The concerns of course come from how this information is used. Even  former vice-president Al Gore called the "secret blanket surveillance" as "obscenely outrageous".

In response to this news, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) said "Of course, keeping American citizens safe is one of government’s most important responsibilities, but there is a fine line between protecting our nation and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. Our government continues to come close to that line and in some areas may have even crossed it. It is exactly these types of concerning reports that spotlight the need for transparency and access to information that I have fought for in Congress and will continue to work towards.”

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) also spoke out on this issue, he said "The Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from evil, too, particularly that which always correlates with concentrated government power, and particularly Executive power. If the President and Congress would obey the Fourth Amendment we all swore to uphold, this new shocking revelation that the government is now spying on citizens' phone data en masse would never have happened."

There is always in government a concern to balance the defense of the nation while maintaining the rights of the individual. I do understand that there is a concern for national security, something which we know is of continuing concern to many of us. After the Boston Bombing attack we all must have wondered if there were warning signs that might have been seen. I do not think however that millions should have their privacy eliminated by the actions of a few. Specifically where there is no just cause to do so. It not only sets up for possible abuse of power, but it also leads to continuing increased lack of privacy and more intrusion by government in the future, if they can seize your phone records, why not your email?Why not your facebook account? Why not all of your banking records? There was a reason we instituted the fourth amendment, so that government stays within the bounds of a set of laws, and does not exceed those bounds and infringe upon the rights of the citizens of our nation. 
 

Americans: Independent Investigator Needed

By Tim Newton
Most Americans believe that we have come to the point with the IRS that a special prosecutor is needed to investigate and uncover the full truth of the targeting and harassment of conservative groups by the IRS according to a new poll. the Quinnipiac University national poll stated that 76% of those who were interviewed said they believed it was necessary.


Much has been happening in the IRS scandal, and we know this for sure from hearings in the house and senate continuing the investigation beyond the report from the IRS. We know that the criteria used to sort through non profit groups for extra scrutiny did include ones with the names "Tea Party," "Patriots," and those seeking to teach about the constitution. Overall from what we have learned, nearly 500 conservative groups were targeted, including 5 pro-Israel groups, groups promoting the constitution,groups that criticized Obama administration, at least two pro-life groups a Texas voting-rights group and several conservative activists and businesses were targeted for additional scrutiny from the IRS after requesting to receive non profit status. It seems that the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly can be added to the list of the Obama administration's attack on the first amendment, adding to it's previous attacks on the press and religious freedom of the people. It seems that the very cornerstones of our free society are edging away as the administration continues to make their attacks on one provision of the Bill of Rights after another.

The scandal has continued and the cover-up is being unraveled. Consequences are coming and coming fast. We recently learned that Lois Lerner has been placed on administrative leave, and is receiving increased heat from republicans for pleading the fifth after reading a written statement and making a claim that she was innocent. It is not a surprise she is pleading the fifth, since last year she was asked to testify about whether the standards had changed for determining which groups would receive extra scrutiny and she said the standards had not changed. We do know now that the standards had changed before, and once the investigation began they changed again. There are also some barely legal things that were done like attempting to impose a gift tax on individuals who made donations to conservative groups.

Also we have learned that the wife of  previous IRS head Douglas Shulman is  an executive for a liberal group whose primary aim is to remove private interest groups from having political influence in government, while also being heavily funded by labor groups.

With an independent investigator more ability to be free of the administration's control would give an opportunity to not only investigate the targeting of individuals but the continued harassment of these groups that applied for tax exempt status.Hopefully with such an investigation this targeting and harassment will stop.

Some have asked well shouldn't we give political groups more scrutiny anyways? My answer is this, the point of tax exempt status is not to have the government or the people pay for a groups existence by not taxing them, but to recognize that they are not out to make a profit, and therefore the moneys they bring in are not in the same category as a business. If you are going to however say we need more scrutiny for political groups, then apply it equally, and don't single out conservative groups alone, many liberal groups were asking for the same status and very very few were given the same scrutiny.

 On the other hand, the bigger issue to me is the continued harassment, some groups being told they couldn't picket planned parenthood, some groups being told they needed to detail the content of prayers that might be prayed at group meetings, some of the questions singled out specific individuals without explanation for why, even when that individual was not a politician, and had no reason why they were involved in the questioning. They were also asked to detail all of their donors and the amount of donation, which is illegal. When that wasn't enough, some of these groups members were also audited, as were their businesses and families, and they had had not previous contact or issues with the IRS before starting these groups.
 Check out our previous posts on this issue:
IRS Scandal: Why does it matter? Read more here

IRS Scandal goes deeper: Read more here

Watch several videos from the Ways and Means Committee Meeting on the IRS Scandal here

A week of scandals, overview of IRS, AP and more. Read more here

IRS Scandal Why Does it Matter?

We first discussed what was going on in this scandal here and here. I think it is important now  to discuss why this scandal matters to the American people. First is that our government and it's leaders have been entrusted to execute the law with fairness and equality. We even created the 14th amendment to ensure equal protection under the law. Second the power that our government has can be abused, and when it is there should be consequences for those who abuse that power.

I want to share a personal experience with you that I had with the IRS. A few years ago I  was a student working for a little cafe on campus making a mere $7 an hour, 15 hours a week. One year I forgot to submit my taxes until July. When I became aware of this I paid up on my taxes and even paid the late fees on my taxes. I owed $25 because the school didn't withold any taxes, and my penalty was around $100. I paid the penalty, but not in time before the next penalty was assessed. Between moving and several stops that penalty again was eventually paid, but cost me another $50. 

Why did I share this story? Because with the IRS you pay and you pay on time, you do it right, and you do it their way. Things do not become ok with them by just saying that you are sorry, you can't plead the fifth and have the IRS tell you it is ok and that they won't investigate further. They demand a response, and if that isn't enough they will take the money directly from your bank account. They can audit your personal finances, your business, and your family members at any time, even with no just cause for such intrusions. To most of America, we fear the IRS and what power it holds in our lives. 

Now when investigating these matters of intrusion by the IRS by illegally targeting conservative groups, it is now makes things ok for saying I'm sorry. According to former IRS Chief Douglas H. Shulmann he is sorry for the IRS actions in these matters, and Lois Lerner started her remarks by apologizing originally which brought this story to light. Today she went before the House she pleaded the fifth. It will become more clear later this week whether or not she will be forced to testify due to her making a statements. This is being debated because of an interpretation issue. 

So why does it matter so much that the IRS is targeting conservative groups? Why does it matter? Because it a gross overreach of power among groups that should be even handed in their approach. As we saw last week in the house ways and means hearing, this was not just a simple overreach of power, and begs a few questions to be asked. First who made this decision? Why did they make the decision to target specific groups? Why were these follow up questions asked? Why didn't they have more supervision over these questions when they were asked?

Why did Lois Lerner plead the fifth? Several members of congress believe she made at best incomplete statements regarding the targeting of conservative groups which applied for tax exempt status while she was chief of the tax exempt division of the IRS. We of course know due to and inspector general report that she new of the targeting as early as June 2011 and that she has testified before congress since then that there was no targeting.

This is transparency at it's worst, when an administration and branches of government hide behind executive privilege(fast and furious) and claiming to have no knowledge of these incidents until they come to public, we must ask the question, does the administration and President really think that the american people are incompetent enough not to make the connections, and realize that his administration is corrupt? We have had four major scandals with no firings, a couple of resignations, but no real consequences for anyone that has taken part. Lois Lerner has even been rewarded by being put in charge of the Obamacare implementation! 

This frankly speaking was a coverup, and continues to be a scandal of import, as it seems that the most overbearing government agency was used for political means to punish those opposing the party in power's authority. It makes perfect sense that of course the same individual in charge of that division of the IRS was then appointed to head up the implementation of Obamacare, because they knew she would do what they wanted her to do, punish the groups that they want punished. Whenever there is power to be had those in power will always seek to keep, increase and often abuse that power.

Something needs to be done, I am encouraged by Senator Heller's (R-NV) actions. Senator Heller (R-NV) has introduced a bill to cut funding to increase IRS agents as requested by Obamacare. 

IRS Scandal Goes Deeper

By Tim Newton
It seemed fairly light, but still overreach at first, with a simple apology by the Chief IRS Director over non-profit organizations admitting that conservative groups had been targeted for extra scrutiny. As it has grown, we now know that this overreach was extremely overbearing and details show a great deal of harassment. It was not however just the overreach of targeting groups that has so many individuals upset, the scandal continues to grow in force and shines more light on the lack of transparency and accountability both in the IRS and in the Obama administration.

We now know that Lois Lerner had a planted questioner ask her about questions that had been asked in the media about the IRS and Tea Party Groups   and she issued an apology, This came just days after her hearing before the Ways and Means Committee herself and right before the Inspector General's report on the IRS's mishandling on Tea Party and conservative groups requests for tax exemption. She has now stated that when she appears before the house she will plead the fifth. This of course comes from the most transparent administration in history. Her current position after being head of this besieged department? She is now the head of the division which has been charged with helping to implement Obamacare.

Some senators see the overreach of the IRS as too much, and that they must be held accountable. Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) has introduced a bill to cut funding to increase IRS agents as requested by Obamacare.
He stated:
 "News that the IRS has been targeting conservative groups violated the trust that the American people place in their government. Nevadans are already concerned about ObamaCare, so the fact that Congress could hand over even more power to an agency under intense scrutiny to enforce the health care law is deeply concerning. The ‘IRS Accountability Act’ suspends funding for new ObamaCare IRS agents because right now we can’t trust the IRS to do its job"

Then we were told by the Obama administration that they had no knowledge of it . We now know that administration officials knew at least three weeks beforehand. Apparently his aids did not inform him of the scandal so he did not "interfere" with the ongoing investigation. Why does our president seem to not know about everything that is going on in his administration? But as we also learned last weekend Obama has had no hand in running government in the last four years to begin with ;).

Now it wouldn't be as bad if this was just a targeting issue, as we learned from the hearings last week before the House Committee on Ways and Means that it wasn't just targeting, but a great deal of harassment including asking for the content of possible prayers that members of the group may pray, voluminous amounts of records, financial details of members, along with audits of businesses and individuals involved with these organizations.

Details keep emerging in this case but the further it goes, the deeper it gets for the Obama administration, as scandals within the departments of  Treasury, Justice, and State continue to be investigated. The Senate's Finance committee sent a bipartisan letter requesting large amounts of documents to be released to the public after hearing from large numbers of non profit groups.It has even extended to a further scandal of investigating and threatening prosecution against a Fox News reporter for an investigation he was conducting. The Justice Department hole keeps being dug deeper, and the time for restraint of the government by the people is need now more than ever.

A week of scandals IRS, AP, and more

By Tim Newton

Four years ago our Nation heralded in a man who said he would put aside the partisan politics of the past, that a new age of bipartisanship had begun, and that his administration would be the most transparent administration of all time. The media went crazy; people cried at his inaugural address thinking that the world would never be the same.

Fast forward to this last week, which some might call the president's worst week in Washington. Not only has he been dealing with the overhang of the Benghazi whistleblowers appearing before congress, but now he is dealing with two additional scandals: the first being the IRS targeting conservative groups and the second is the AP phone records requests from the Justice Department.

So we have an overreach of power so much that even Jon Stewart couldn't control himself.



Even he said it: "A good government has the power to improve peoples lives and the people have the power to restrain it's excesses."

For the last few years I have not remained silent in my contempt for the current administration. An inexperienced man in power giving too much rope to his subordinates with too little accountability leads heavily down the lane of abuse of power by said subordinates in order to maintain their power and control. If Fast and Furious and Benghazi wasn't enough,  we have now added in two additional scandals to the mix to show that in all reality the president is one of two things: a dirty Chicago politician or an ignorant inexperienced leader with no actual control over his administration. I hope for his sake it's the latter, because at least that would mean he wasn't lying as he continues to have his press secretary say that he had no knowledge of these different scandals.

The fairytale is over, the shine has faded off of his presidency, and we are left to understand the basic deception of it: that a people wanting a celebrity president got one, who then in turn was really just a politician playing them like any other previous politician. Watch this from the Chicago Tribune:



The deception is over, the curtain has been pulled, and now we see the man who uses power to get what he wants exposed for who he is.  He is not a god. He is a man, and a man with power cannot be trusted to any degree.

At his commencement address at The Ohio State University, he stated  “You’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. You should reject these voices. Because what these suggest is that somehow our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.”

I beg to differ with his opinion on this matter. The cynics are not as concerned with the form of government that has been established - a restricted republic with checks and balances - as they are with the abuses of power that seem to be inherent when one group or individual gains too much power. It seems to be human nature that too much power brings out the worst in men, sometimes the best, but more often than not the worst. As someone once said, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is therefore necessary that we limit this power with checks, including legislative, judicial, and regulatory. When compared with the other two branches of government, the Executive Branch has seen a much broader expansion of powers. This expansion throughout our history has exceeded by far its mandated responsibilities granted by the Constitution.

Our founders when conceiving our constitution were afraid of factions taking over portions or all of our government and oppressing individuals. They gave the government checks and balances, to ensure that even though the government might not be the most efficient, it would have the best shot at restraining tyranny. We must restrain the excessive power of our government, and I believe we need to begin with the executive branch. 

The RNC Benghazi Attack Campaign Ad That Never Ran.

By Tim Newton This ad was one which the RNC created but never ran during the campaign.
Why did the RNC decide not to run this ad focused on Benghazi, which could have put further heat on a president who was nowhere to be found in the aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack on a Libyan mission?



The ad states:"It's 3am and your children are safe asleep but there's a phone in the white house that's ringing, something's happened in the world." It then says: “The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.”  After the screen goes black, the words continue: “Security Requests Denied. Four Americans Dead. And an Administration whose story is still changing. The Call Came.”

ABC News reported:”A source familiar with the creation of the ad says the RNC leadership approved the ad but it was scrapped at the last minute because of objections from the Romney campaign, which was concerned the ad would distract from Romney’s efforts to focus on the economy.”


Upcoming soon, one of our authors will cover the Benghazi story in depth, giving us some understanding of what happened, who's to blame and why it still matters now. But I leave you with one question: Should the RNC and Romney Campaign run this ad? Tell us what you think below.

3 year anniversary of Obamacare

By Tim Newton
Congratulations Obamacare! Your monstrous 2000 page law is now 3 years old. I missed the actual date for celebrating it, but I wanted to do a short follow up on some thoughts that I have on Health Care reform. As you may remember Obamacare was the 2010 law that was enacted to bring about universal health care reform. It included popular provisions like extending coverage for dependent children to 26 and allowing for preexisting conditions to be included. It also included less popular provisions such as the individual mandate (which was upheld by the supreme court under congresses taxation powers) and the expansion of medicare. At this point 3 years later Obamacare still has not been fully implemented, and is due to be fully implemented this year if it goes according to the set schedule of the bill. 

During his campaign in 2008 Barack Obama promised that "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

Many Americans are now asking questions like: what happened to real health care reform? Why are we paying absurd premiums and taking home less of our pay because we're paying too high of premiums? have you heard of a company that has decided not to hire someone because the cost of benefits has become too high? What happened to the law that was signed and would limit the cost of premiums and make healthcare more affordable for all. Has it? Not only has it failed to become more affordable, our premiums on average have increased incredibly and federal spending is set to increase dramatically over the next decade on it and increase our current programs, but why are we surprised at any of this? Nancy Pelosi herself said it best when she said "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” She later explained that "why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t...But the fact is, until you have a bill, you can’t really, we can’t really debunk what they’re saying."

Much of the increased spending that you see in the graph above comes from the expansion of medicare, which states were given some freedom to decide on. Many have opted in, and some will opt out. There will be more spending guaranteed though, and for me I see it as less effective rather than more effective, but maybe I'll save that for another posts.

So let's think about this, what were republicans saying exactly when (then) Speaker Pelosi made that statement? Each of these is supported by her statement to the Washington Post that this is what she meant. She said republicans said it was about job killing. Have jobs increased? She said more than 4 Million jobs would be created by it's implementation. We have heard numerous accounts of jobs being lost or hours being cut because of Obamacare. It was about death panels. Well seeing as Obamacare had nothing in it's implementation to increase the amount of doctors, we most likely will have limited coverage as the years continue, especially ad medicaid and medicare continue to grow and cover more individuals. So what else could republicans have possibly been angry about? Apparently it never really got through to her that maybe we didn't want more government involved in our lives making decisions for us. 

On top of all this, we heard this week about congress trying to exempt it's staffers from the exchange program. To clarify some of this (as there has been some confusion) I quote from the Politico story that broke the news 

"The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty."

This problem stems from an amendment to the ACA that altered government responsibility to employees, and from what I can tell congress is not trying to exempt itself or its staffers from Obamacare as we all know that would be political suicide for any party involved. For a better explanation of this go here.

Continuing back to the original discussion here, I have never been a big fan of enacting laws to get people to do things. I have long been a supporter of the idea that you teach people and lead by example and people will follow. healthcare is the same as anything else, you lead by example, people will follow.


So what really needs to be done on healthcare? The number one focus should be decreasing the epidemic of obesity in the country. two thirds of the country is considered overweight, and we are just shy of 1/3 of the adult population in the country is obese. Tackling this problem through proper eating habits and exercise should be our main focus, and we need our leaders at the national, state and local levels to focus on this immediately if we are to avoid the incredibly dangerous health risks associated with it.

But what is being done? I am glad and a big proponent of the show "The Biggest Loser." As I believe that it has shed a great deal of light on the situation. If we are to accomplish beating this epidemic we need leaders that will stand up and recognize the problem for what it is, a drain on our healthcare system. Treating the health factors of diabetes and heart disease is crushing our system. The CDC and other organizations are trying to spread the word among Americans that we need to change our lifestyles. If we want premiums to go down, we need a healthier America. Exercise has further benefits beyond maintaining a healthy weight. It can increase our immune system, decreases stress, increases happiness, increases your brain's capabilities among other things.

So get off the computer and go out and take a walk!(after finishing reading this) and spread the news.

But what about Obamacare? As it stands it is the law of the land, and that is unlikely to change. It has become overwhelmingly mingled with our current regulations and while it is seeming extremely costly and we may wish that it would go away, it is unlikely to do so soon. So my recommendation for decreasing your healthcare costs? Get healthy on your own, go join a gym, learn to cook foods that are better for you, and cut down on the things that are bad for your body. Maybe Obamacare won't ever decrease our healthcare costs, but maybe we can.

Gun Control: what are we even talking about here?

By Tim Newton
Article updated 4/18/2013

On December 14, 2012 a man named Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School and fatally shot 20 children and 6 adults. His primary weapon was an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. I remember this day with sadness in my heart. I prayed for the families of the victims and watched as a nation mourned in disbelief. Many asked how could we let such a thing happen? Shouldn't someone have known he was going to do this and what can we do to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future?


There is some basic information to consider about gun control which comes from both sides. Obviously we need to consider some basic statistical information concerning gun violence in the U.S. and the effectiveness of gun control on gun violence. The first thing we should all know is that in the last five years murders by firearms has decreased significantly. According to the FBI crime statistics murders overall and murders by firearm were down 15% from 2007 to 2011. That still means however that there are over 8000 murders caused by firearms in the U.S. Firearms deaths are one of the lowest causes of death in the U.S. overall, as heart disease and cancer continue to lead in those categories. Assault weapons are generally among the least used form of weapon in deaths in the U.S. This being said, semi-automatic weapons have been used in many of the successful mass shootings in the U.S.

Comparing the U.S. to other nations with gun violence seems difficult as well. Several studies conducted by the United Nations and others have been conflicting at times, but largely seem to point to the idea that increased gun rights also means increased overall rights for individuals within nations.


The two sides are also at odds on another basic issue, that of overall government philosophy. The question is: Should we have more government control or less? Generally speaking we consider liberals to want more control over issues dealing with economic policy and conservatives wanting less. This of course means that liberals would want increased control and regulations on guns, while conservatives are desiring more ability for law abiding citizens while striving to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Neither side wants these tragedies to continue, and each side has put forth solutions to what they see as the problems.

Two days after the tragedy President Obama made a pledge at a vigil honoring the victims that he would do whatever he could with the power of his office to prevent similar future tragedies from occurring. Shortly thereafter he appointed Vice President Biden to head up a Gun Violence Task force. After going around the country and meeting with activists on both sides for a few weeks, the administration announced 23 executive orders dealing with gun control. These orders include increasing the effectiveness of background checks by encouraging federal and state departments to cooperate together, maximizing efforts to enforce gun laws, and authorizing studies on gun violence prevention. Among these orders was also included a controversial order that encouraged doctors to ask their patients if they had a gun in the home and allow doctors to report that, if necessary, "to law enforcement authorities." One thing I want to mention here. Obama stated that : "it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.” It should be noted that 40 percent of all inmates obtain their weapons from family or friends, 10 percent obtained their guns in the course of their crime, and almost another 40 percent obtained their weapons by illegal means.

Since then the U.S. Congress has dealt with the issue in great detail. Heading up the issues include Senators Feinstein (D-CA), Manchin (D-WV), Toomey (R-PA) and Collins (R-ME). Several bills have been introduced that are under discussion and debate that deal with gun violence in America.



The NRA came out with suggestions to increase security at schools by placing armed guards at all schools, something that is common at most middle and high schools around the country. They also suggested that we deal with the mental health and culture of violence in our country.

Senator Feinstein's bill would ban the sale, manufacture or transportation of any assault rifle, which is any automatic rifle with a "military" feature(pistol grip, threaded barrel, shrouded barrel) as well as any magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds.

The bipartisan senate bill headed up by Senators Collins and Leahy  would make gun trafficking a federal crime for the first time with punishments of up to 20 years for those who violate it. 

Senators Pat Toomey(R-PA) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) introduced another bill that would increase background checks to include all commercial sales of guns,  even those in gun shows and internet sales. Senator Toomey said "Criminal background checks are just common sense. If you pass a criminal background check, you can buy a gun. It's the people who fail a criminal or mental health background check that we don't want having guns. That can be done without infringing on law-abiding people's gun rights. And we ought to do it."

Many states have considered and some have passed their own laws on the issue with the divide widening, as some states loosened control while many increased regulations on gun purchasing and ownership.

So what will happen with these bills? The filibuster lead by Senators Marco Rubio(R-FL) and Rand Paul(R-KY) of Feinstein's Bill was broken when several senators including Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), Senator Joe Manchin(D-WV) and Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) agreed to open up debate on the issue. This however does not mean that they agree with or would vote yes with the current bill. To quote Senator Heller:

  "As a strong supporter and bold defender of the Second Amendment, I refuse to compromise Nevadans' constitutional rights. It is because of my solid support for the Second Amendment that I am not afraid of having this debate. I remain staunchly opposed to any proposal that would create a national gun registry or would infringe upon Nevadans’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. At the same time, I do think it’s important to explore ways to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. As the deliberative body, let’s move forward with an open debate and give Americans an opportunity to better understand where their representatives in Washington stand on this issue."


That being said, there has been movement on this issue by Senators Manchin(D-WV) and Toomey(R-PA), but many believe that without a strong showing in the senate of at least 70 votes, it would be difficult for such a bill to pass the house.

It is likely that once the bill hits the floor in the senate that the bill could easily have many amendments proposed and passed which could limit the effect of it much like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did. I am sure both the gun lobby and the gun control lobby have been prepping for when this happens.

It seems much more likely that the bills offered by Senators Collins (R-ME), Toomey(R-PA) and Manchin (D-WV) would have a chance at passing in the house due to their wide popular support and backing from bipartisan members. These two could get weighed down by amendments and votes on these could be very interesting.

My opinion on the matter is that there should be background checks on all commercial sales, which we already have. Another thing to note is that .7% of all criminals in prison obtained their weapons from gun shows.  What seems to be the aim of increasing checks? A national registry where gun owners would have to register their firearms with the US government. There may be other options here as well that could be considered. So we need to start thinking about what would actually have stopped these attacks.

I am against banning further weapons because I feel it necessary to limit the amount of control our government has, and that we must strive to simplify it, not make it more complex. I stand against creating a national gun registry because that men have a tendency to do evil things, and therefore while lots of power is good in one man's hands it can and will be used for evil by evil men. More power generally leads to more corruption and more waste.

I also feel that one option that hasn't been given much consideration is increasing the use of gun safety courses, and use of gun safes. I favor increased security at elementary schools and movie theaters, as this seems to have worked as a successful deterrent at high schools since the Columbine High School Shooting.

I also believe that we must make further efforts to consider treating mental health and the culture of violence which we have allowed to take hold in America. From what we can tell it appears that Adam Lanza spent much of his time locked in a dark room playing first person shooter video games and even created a spreadsheet that focused on the amount of victims of each shooting. He clearly wanted to kill as many people as he could and chose the elementary school for that reason. Little has been said about these issues and we need to deal with it in our culture and in our homes. I believe that as we strengthen our homes and our communities by becoming involved in them we can lower crime, bring people together and accomplish a great deal together.

I am not opposed to further gun trafficking laws as long as they would not infringe too heavily upon individual rights. I also feel like simplifying some of these regulations or leaving them to the states to decide would make this issue simpler to resolve, as each state has different cultures and ideas, and as such have different perspectives on this issue and gun culture.



Do you agree? disagree? please comment below or shoot us an email at: politicaldisccussionsforamerica@gmail.com